Tier 1 fuels?
i understand that you have two different vehicles with two different engines. one is more sensitive to fuel choice than the other. very easy to believe.
i also understand that the base fuel is all the same with only the additives being different ... this is common knowledge.
what i don't understand is how you can say the "two cupfulls" of additive per 7,000 gallon tanker is "all hype" when you say your ranger gets better mileage on shell.
if it were all hype, then you would not be getting better mileage at shell with ANY vehicle.
if, as you say, 87 octane is 87 octane (which it is not, because around here there is 87 octane e10 and 87 octane regular) then your ranger wouldn't get any different mileage no matter where you fill up.
it seems that you also do not have a firm grasp on what "top tier" means. in your list above, only 2 are top tier. Top Tier Gasoline ive been filling up at Clark, because it is local. there is a name on the banner, does that mean i'm getting a top tier fuel? i think not.
i understand that you have two different vehicles with two different engines. one is more sensitive to fuel choice than the other. very easy to believe.
i also understand that the base fuel is all the same with only the additives being different ... this is common knowledge.
what i don't understand is how you can say the "two cupfulls" of additive per 7,000 gallon tanker is "all hype" when you say your ranger gets better mileage on shell.
if it were all hype, then you would not be getting better mileage at shell with ANY vehicle.
if, as you say, 87 octane is 87 octane (which it is not, because around here there is 87 octane e10 and 87 octane regular) then your ranger wouldn't get any different mileage no matter where you fill up.
it seems that you also do not have a firm grasp on what "top tier" means. in your list above, only 2 are top tier. Top Tier Gasoline ive been filling up at Clark, because it is local. there is a name on the banner, does that mean i'm getting a top tier fuel? i think not.
depending on the vehicle (see below) i usually get better mileage on Shell.
what's the point? that a very little bit of very strong chemical can do a lot of work, regarless of the size of batch it is going into.
as you said, some cars are more sensitive to fuels than others. i can tell you our subaru likes shell, as did the cavalier, the escort and the explorer .. they all got better mileage on shell. the expedition, 79 ford, and v10 seem to get the same crappy mileage no matter what you feed them.
why clark? because the local shell station went out of business.
FWIW, Clark is a regional brand - that is to say they are not a "no name" fuel.
you seem to be stuck on the fact that the additives can't make a difference because they put so little in the batch. despite the fact that your ranger runs better on one type of fuel, you refuse to attribute that to the additives in the blend -- while knowing full well that the only difference between the brands is the additives as the base fuel comes from the same place.
as they say. YMMV
maybe it helps that the cheap stations near me do huge volume, so they are always getting fresh fuel?











